New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Seeing that there is no interest, I cannot explain how sad this is for me, not for me, but for those viewing this thread. The misunderstanding is difficult to overcome, but I will continue to try to help those who are not sure what this has to do with peace on earth. I really get it. As long as I can post, which I appreciate, I will try to demonstrate why this knowledge is so important. There may be naysayers, of course, but let the proof win.

[MagsJ]

.

It appears that the few people who have participated in this thread have left. It's not surprising because this knowledge is so far removed from their own worldview that they cannot be objective. If a newcomer happens to be scrolling and finds this thread, I will, once again, leave the link to the first three chapters. They can then make up their own minds.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 1c348cf4de

..or is it because you have been talking about the same scenarios -for years- that the West are currently attempting to implement, in the West?

Coincidence..?

Hi Mags, I remember you from another forum. What do you mean "talking about the same scenarios for years and that the West is attempting to implement?" Compassion, rehabilitation, and second chances have worked. I don't think it's a coincidence at all because our world is moving toward the understanding that changing the environment to be more equitable will change human conduct in general. This discovery supports the efforts that the West is trying to implement, but in ways that will only add to achieving the end goal of peace and prosperity for all.

UK crime (killings, stabbings, r*pes, thefts) have risen in recent weeks.. just in time for the festive season.

Big-up the home-grown radicalised Muslim youth?

_
I do think that institutionalised racism needs to become a thing of the past, but so does DEI.. as it has allowed radicals to take over Governments’ systems from the inside and destroy those countries.

[peacegirl]

I'm wondering where the author's explanation as to why man's will is not free is being challenged in order to pinpoint what exactly needs clarification, because it appears that many people don't like the idea and will try to refute it anyway they can. I may never be able to prove to someone, no matter how clear the demonstration is, that will is not free, if this causes cognitive/dissonance. I will repeat certain posts to hopefully clarify any misunderstandings. If there are no refutations or questions, I will assume that people are in agreement, and I will continue. Just remember that people can disagree that the earth is round, or one plus one is two, but these types of arguments are not valid, and I will not let an important discussion to be thrown into a slush pile for no other reason than people want me to fail because they don't want determinism to be true.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The dictionary states that free will is “The power of self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good or evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary.” But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible and blamed for doing what he does. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than he does — if he wants to — and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note, supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself, what then? Does this make his will free? Can’t you see the humor here?

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family, but can’t find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief, and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc.; what is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen good, which, in this case, was almost any other alternative. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit, does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that the laws did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.

Now it is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way if he doesn’t want to. Furthermore, the most severe tortures and even the threat of death cannot compel him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the words “free will,” which signify this, are also absolutely true because they symbolize what mathematical perception cannot deny, and here lies the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion, because man is not caused or compelled to do anything he makes up his mind not to do.

The words “free will” contain an assumption or fallacy, for they imply that if man is not compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical conclusions. Consequently, determinism was faced with an impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil when it was obvious that nothing, absolutely nothing, could cause him to do what he has made up his mind not to do. He was not caused or compelled to commit a crime; he did it of his own free will; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to. The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because, in order for them to be developed and have significance, it was absolutely necessary that the words “free will” be born as their opposite. But none of these words actually describe reality unless interpreted properly. The expression, “I did it of my own free will,” is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean, “I did it because I wanted to do it; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.” But the truth of the matter is that at any particular moment of time, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys an invariable law, which I shall prove in an undeniable manner. It is extremely important, however, that you understand the expression “I did it of my own free will” is correct, but in no way indicates that man’s will is free. In fact, I shall use it frequently myself.

During every moment of a person’s existence, he is carried along, completely beyond his control, on the wings of time or life. He cannot stop himself from getting older, and is compelled to either live or commit suicide if not satisfied with life; can anyone disagree?

[peacegirl]

It is taken for granted you understand that a great many motions of man are under the normal compulsion of living and therefore do not play any part in what pertains to the belief in free will because no choice is involved; consequently, these are not my concern. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for growing, aging, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc. Obviously, a great part of our lives offers no choice, and therefore it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the compulsion of living, are beyond control. Since it is mathematically impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is mathematically impossible for a person to commit suicide unless dissatisfied with life, we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Life is all motion and never satisfied to remain in one spot forever and always. Every motion of life, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, which is death. I shall now call the present moment of life or time here, for the purpose of mathematical clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time called here and are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain right where you are without moving a hair’s breadth, which is death or here. Which do you prefer, here or there, death or life? If you are still reading, it is obvious and mathematically undeniable that you are not satisfied to stay in one position forever and always, which is death, and prefer moving off that spot here to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement, however slight or imperceptible, away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here in this one position, which is death, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which motion is an expression of dissatisfaction with death or a motion away from that which dissatisfies, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of satisfaction. This reasoning is completely mathematical in every way and does not require your approval for its validity. However, it is not imperative that you grasp these relations the first time around, as the rest of the book will confirm their veracity. My suggestion is to take your time and study them anyway, for they cannot be denied unless by someone who does not understand this reasoning at all. Three is to six what four is to eight, but if you cannot understand this relation, your inability does not invalidate the truth.

This simple demonstration proves conclusively that from moment to moment all through his life man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and that his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction; otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch, as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, etc., are unsatisfied needs of life pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy in many cases to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at times, especially when the relation of words has never been understood adequately, to understand the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Consequently, although your mind is still unable to grasp these relations, this demonstration also proves conclusively that man’s will is not free, but let us put this to a mathematical test.

[peacegirl]

Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? Supposing the clergy wanted of two alternatives, A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; is it possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B when one of the two must be chosen, are they not compelled by their very nature to prefer A; and how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer of two alternatives — either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what one doesn’t want when what one does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. For example, it would permit a woman to spend on a dress she does not want when a dress she does want is available as an alternative. If she does not want either dress, she is compelled to prefer the one that is the least undesirable of the two; therefore, her choice in this comparison is the most preferable or satisfying under her particular circumstances.

Supposing you were taken prisoner in wartime for espionage and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice of two exists: A is the painless hemlock of your philosopher Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water; which do you prefer, and have I given you a choice? Is it humanly possible to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative? Yet it is stated that good or evil can be chosen without compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact that there is a tremendous amount of compulsion. Once it is understood that life is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction, and two such alternatives are presented, what choice can you possibly have but to accept the lesser of two evils? Since it is absolutely impossible to prefer B as long as A is available as an alternative, although it could be chosen to something still worse, are you not compelled, completely beyond your control in this set of circumstances, to prefer A; and since the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion since B was evil and could not be selected in this comparison of alternatives? “But this is ridiculous,” you might reply, “for you are not giving us any choice.” I most certainly am giving you a choice, and if you are free, you should be able to choose B just as well as A.

The word 'choice' is very misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards satisfaction, compels man to prefer of differences what he considers better for himself; and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer not that one which is considered by him worse, but what gives every indication of being better for the particular set of circumstances involved. The purpose of thinking things through is to avoid, as much as possible, making a mistake, which is hindsight recognition of what should have been done where the reactions of others are concerned. The purpose of choice is to compare meaningful differences to decide which alternative is preferable. A and B, representing small or great differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference, which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction, which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison because it gives less satisfaction. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are not free to choose A, for your preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control. The word 'choice' itself indicates there are preferable differences; otherwise, there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but he is compelled to prefer of alternatives the one he considers better for himself. Consequently, even though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all. Are you beginning to see how words have deceived you?

Supposing, in an effort to demonstrate that man’s will is free, you show that although you prefer a yellow to a red apple, you are going to choose and eat the red; do you honestly think this demonstrates freedom of the will? Isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple, this choice, at that moment, gave you greater satisfaction; otherwise, you would have definitely selected the yellow?

How many times in your life have you remarked, “It makes no difference” or “You give me no choice?” Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value that no hesitation is required to decide which of the alternatives is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, doesn’t change the direction of life which moves always and ever towards satisfaction. The truth of the matter is that all through life man is compelled to choose what he considers not evil but good for himself; but who has the right to judge what is good or evil for another when a particular set of circumstances may decide one to prefer what he knows is wrong in the eyes of society yet considered good for himself since the alternative is still worse? What you may judge bad for yourself doesn’t make it so for another, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives which affect choice.

Man has two possibilities that are reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he doesn’t have a choice because no choice is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the compulsion of living, regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by the motion of his life, to prefer the one he considers better for himself, whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Therefore, it is mathematically impossible for the will of man to be free. It was also mathematically impossible for any previous stage of your development to have understood the deeper factors involved, which were necessary for an adequate solution, just as it was impossible for atomic energy to have been discovered at a prior time, because the deeper relations were not perceived. Consequently you have been compelled to blame, criticize and punish as the only possible alternative when judged by your undeveloped mind; but at last you will be granted understanding which reveals a pattern of harmony in the mankind system equal in every way with the mathematical accuracy of the solar system, and you are in for the greatest series of beneficent changes in your entire existence, which must come about as a matter of necessity the very moment this entire book is understood. This and the next chapter only scratch the surface while laying the foundation.

[peacegirl]

Man, as a part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, he was doing what he had to do because he had no choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible, like environment and heredity, which do not cause; they are man’s actions, or like God, who does not cause, he is. Nothing in the past can possibly cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices, decisions, and prefer of whatever is available during each lifetime that which he considers better for himself. If he finds that a discovery like the electric bulb is for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he is compelled to prefer it, for his motion, just being alive, is always in the direction of greater satisfaction. But this knowledge, this discovery that man’s will is not free, was not available to you before this, and what it reveals as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that God is a definite reality, but it will also put an immediate end to all evil around Earth.

To say God is good is a true observation, for nothing in this universe, when the mathematical relations are perceived, is evil, which is only a word to describe the hurt in human relations. The fact that your theologians could never reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything, compelled them for satisfaction to give birth to Satan or some other force of darkness, in order to continue believing in the goodness of God. How was it possible for people to believe that Christ and Moses were not one whit better than Hitler, or for the Jews to believe that God exterminated six million of their people? Do you see how easy it is for words to confuse unless clarified with the perception of mathematical relations?

The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil because it was impossible to blame God for man’s deliberate crimes. Therefore, it was stated that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty that allowed him to choose between good and evil. It never dawned on theologians and philosophers that man’s choice of what he considered better for himself, even though it may have been evil when judged by others, came about in direct obedience to his nature or God’s will, who had reasons you were not supposed to understand — until now.

Though it is true that man must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the latter is offered as an alternative (but remember the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is right and wrong, not symbols of reality), it was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed. But the amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that criticized determinism as ridiculous, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction, which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws. This universe is a mathematical whole which includes man who has been steadily gravitating in an unconscious manner towards the Golden Age which many of your prophets foresaw; but now no more prophesies are necessary for this long-awaited, wonderful moment you have been looking forward to with great anticipation has arrived at last. There will take place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person consciously realizes what it means that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.

The knowledge that man’s will is not free and what this means, which will be revealed shortly, is your long-sought elixir of alchemy, for the baser metals of human nature are going to be magically transmuted into the pure gold of genuine happiness for every individual on the planet. It is also that long sought standard and touchstone of truth and reality.
 

[peacegirl]

CHAPTER 2 — The Great Impasse of Blame

Just think of this tremendous wisdom! Here is versatile man; writer, composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian, architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief, etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and lack of development to believe that it is, since it was impossible not to blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of necessity, and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to why will is not free and what this means for the entire world, which perception was utterly impossible without the development, and absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of history, have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?

Once it is established beyond a shadow of doubt that will is not free because life is constantly moving in the direction of satisfaction completely beyond control (this is an invariable law which cannot be denied or disproven by anyone anywhere), compelling man to always prefer of available alternatives that which he, not someone else, considers better for himself, it becomes mathematically impossible to blame him for anything he does, regardless of what is done. Though this is an undeniable corollary, how is it humanly possible not to hold him responsible for murder, rape, the killing of six million people, etc.? Does this mean that you are supposed to condone these crimes or turn the other cheek? Besides, what will prevent you from blaming and punishing despite the fact that will is not free — if it gives you greater satisfaction? Just because man’s will is not free is certainly not a sufficient explanation as to why there should be no blame. At this very point lies the crux of a problem that has kept free will in power since time immemorial. The solution, however, only requires the perception and extension of relations which cannot be denied; and this mathematical corollary, that man is not to blame for anything at all, is a key to the infinite wisdom of God which will unlock a treasure so wonderful that you will be compelled to catch your breath in absolute amazement. But your mind is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that accumulated through the years out of necessity.

Now to solve this enigma regarding the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame (for this seems mathematically impossible), it is extremely important to go through a deconfusion process regarding words by employing a mathematical relation, which can be empirically verified. Consequently, as was pointed out earlier, and to reveal this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or do anything to another person unless he wants to. Even the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do what he makes up his mind not to do, where other people are involved. He is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his environment and heredity, but prefers this action because, at that moment, he considers it better for himself for one reason or another. It gives him greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. But though it is a mathematical, undeniable law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion to do everything he does.

He is not compelled to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will; he actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion or the lesser of two evils. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink unless he wants to. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his people do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was considered the lesser of two evils? Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and innumerable of your words and expressions say this), he is obviously confused by words and unconsciously dishonest with himself because everything man does to another is done, as was mathematically demonstrated, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time for one reason or another; but remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. So bear in mind now, for this is that very crucial point I find necessary to repeat; man is never compelled to do what he doesn’t want to do, but is compelled to do everything he does. This reveals that he has mathematical control over the former but absolutely none over the latter. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.

Consequently, if man were to say, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,” which demonstrates vividly how utterly confused your philosophical minds have always been, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility to heredity, environment, God, or something else for the many things he wants to do, he is obviously lying or being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this he has mathematical control. The belief in free will (again take note of your confusion) ironically enough permitted justification, excuses, extenuating circumstances and the shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part if not all the responsibility, which allowed man to absolve his conscience in a world of right and wrong and get away with murder in a figurative sense — the very things which the knowledge that will is not free positively prevents as you will see.

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments, which came into existence out of God’s will as did everything else, and consequently you have come to believe, through a fallacious association of symbols, that these words which judge the actions of others are accurate. But in reality when murder is committed it is neither wrong nor right, just what someone at a certain point in his life considered better for himself under circumstances which included the judgment of others and the risks involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates by taking this person’s life, this too was neither right nor wrong, just what gave greater satisfaction. Neither the government nor the murderer are to blame for what each judged better under their particular set of circumstances; but whether they will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions, under which they were previously motivated, remain the same, and they do not remain as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals facts never before understood.

Because of this general confusion with words, through which you have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at first glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being blamed to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under control by the fear of punishment and public opinion which judged his actions in accordance with standards of right and wrong; but this is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning simply because it is mathematically impossible to shift your responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when you know in advance that you will not be blamed for what you do. Now observe this very carefully: Is it possible for you to say, “I couldn’t help myself because man’s will is not free,” when you know in advance that no one will blame or judge your action regardless of what you do? I repeat, think about this very carefully because it is another crucial point. If you try to justify or excuse your action, it is an indication that the person to whom you are presenting this justification must consider the action wrong in some way; otherwise, there would be no need for it. If you do what others judge to be right, is it necessary to lie or offer excuses? It is only possible to shift your responsibility with excuses and justification when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you for doing something considered wrong by others. They are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you for satisfaction to think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action. But once it is realized that no one henceforth will blame your doing whatever you desire to do, regardless of what is done — because your action will be considered a compulsion over which you have no control — it becomes mathematically impossible to blame something or someone for what you know you have done or shift your responsibility in any way.

The fact that man was held responsible for doing what others considered wrong and evil, and the fact that he desired to do this, compelled him, as a motion in the direction of satisfaction, to blame various factors or causes for the many things he desired to do that were considered wrong since he didn’t like to assume full responsibility for being in the wrong. But the very moment the dethronement of free will prevents man from blaming man, he is also prevented from excusing or justifying his own actions, which compels him, completely beyond his control but of his own free will, not only to assume full responsibility for everything he does but to be absolutely honest with himself and others. How is it humanly possible for you to desire lying to me or to yourself when your actions are not being judged by others, and how is it possible for you to shift your responsibility when no one holds you responsible? This is an undeniable observation, but though it demonstrates that man’s responsibility is mathematically increased, how is it humanly possible not to judge, not to criticize, not to blame and punish those acts of crime when we know that man was not compelled to do them if he didn’t want to? If someone kidnapped and killed your child, how is it possible not to hate the individual responsible, not to judge this as an act of evil, not to desire some form of revenge? This has always been the greatest stumbling block that has kept free will on the throne until the present time. But this enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the mathematical corollary, God’s commandment, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not apply to anything after it is done, only before. Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural to seek some form of retaliation, for this is a source of satisfaction that is the direction life is compelled to take. Therefore, the knowledge that man’s will is not free cannot possibly prevent the hate and blame which you have been compelled to live with all these many years as a consequence of these terrible crimes and other forms of hurt, yet God’s mathematical law cannot be denied for man is truly not to blame for anything he does notwithstanding, so obviously a still deeper analysis is required.

[peacegirl]

The solution lies in the fact that the people truly responsible for all the evil, hurt, and crime, for which they cannot be held responsible, are actually unconscious of this responsibility, and instead blame an individual who is not at fault for the very things of which they are innocently guilty. Therefore, the problem is to bring to the surface, with a mathematical, infallible line of demarcation, these hidden facts. Your philosopher Socrates grasped this when he said: “I know that I don’t know; other men don’t know either, but think they know.” The actual responsibility lies with everyone who judges and tacitly blames the actions of another before anything is even done. However, this advance blame is not only contained in your customs, conventions, morals, and laws, but in the very words that describe fallacious differences of value which permit superior, inferior, better, worse, good, bad, and innumerable other words and expressions to be used in relation to different individuals.

But the question arises, even though God reveals in a mathematical manner that man is not to blame for anything he has ever done, and even though he explicitly states Thou Shall Not Blame, how is it humanly possible for this Great Transition to come about when this advance blame itself, this judging of what is right for others, is such a tremendous source of satisfaction and actually supports millions upon millions of people in their effort to earn a living? The only thing that could make government, religion, the unions, and everyone else give up this judging of what is right for others (and I can’t enumerate everything here) is when the alternative to this is still worse, but up until the present time, the knowledge to reveal this great power was not available. You have not been aware that this unconscious judging of what is right for others actually encouraged and justified the very things you didn’t want, but take note of the most fantastic wisdom.

At this present moment of time or life, you are standing on this spot called here and are constantly in the process of moving to there. You know as a matter of positive knowledge that nothing, no one can cause or compel you to do anything to another you don’t want to do, and this other who is standing on this spot called there to which you plan to move from here, also knows positively that you cannot be blamed for your motion from here to there, regardless of what is done. Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that not only I but everyone on your planet will never blame or punish you for hurting me in some way, because you know that we are compelled to completely excuse what is beyond your control, is it mathematically possible (think about this carefully) for you to derive any satisfaction whatever from the contemplation of this hurt when you know beyond a shadow of doubt that no one, including myself, will ever hold you responsible, ever criticize your action, ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what is completely beyond your control? But remember, you haven’t hurt me yet, and you know that you do not have to hurt me unless you want to; consequently, your motion from here to there is still within your control. Therefore the moment it fully dawns on you that this hurt, should you go ahead with it, will not be blamed, criticized or judged in any way because no one wants to hurt you for doing what must be considered a compulsion beyond your control, you are compelled, completely of your own free will, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never give you any satisfaction under these conditions, which proves that A, everybody has the power to control B, everybody else, by letting B know, as is being done with this book, that no one will ever be blamed for anything that is done. The solution is now very obvious because the advance knowledge that man will not be blamed for anything he desires to do, mathematically prevents those very acts for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. Instead of being able to absolve your conscience by justifying an act of crime or some other form of hurt, which permitted the shifting of your responsibility while encouraging the crime (are you confused?), the knowledge that your will is not free and what this means actually prevents you from deriving any satisfaction from the contemplation of this hurt to another by the realization that you will not be blamed, criticized, or punished for this act. Let me clarify this another way.

Turning the other cheek, which also proves in a mathematical manner that man’s will is not free, absolutely prevents the second cheek from being struck because it is impossible, as the people of India demonstrated, to get satisfaction from continuing to hurt those who refuse to fight back, but many were killed just by being struck on the first cheek. My imparting the knowledge that no one will again blame you in any way, judge your actions, or tell you what to do, mathematically prevents your first cheek from being struck, which is necessary in a world of atomic energy where an entire nation can be wiped out from being struck on the first cheek. However, there is one vital point that appears contradictory and needs clarification.

If the knowledge that man’s will is not free is supposed to prevent that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary, and if, as was already stated, a person who saw his child deliberately kidnapped and killed would be compelled to desire revenge as a normal reaction in the direction of satisfaction, how can this knowledge prevent some form of revenge? Just because you have learned that man’s will is not free is not a sufficient explanation as to why you should not want to cut out the heart of this criminal with a knife, so once again, we must understand what God means when he mathematically instructs us not to blame.

[peacegirl]

When the knowledge in this book is released and understood, every person, as always, will be standing on this moment of time or life called here, and so to speak, preparing to move to the next spot called there. Consequently you will be made aware that the person who kidnapped and killed your child, or did some other form of hurt which occurred prior to the release of this knowledge and regardless of how much you hate and despise what was done, will never blame in any way your desire for revenge, which means that he will never run and hide to avoid your vengeance because this act of fear in itself is a form of tacit blame; and when it fully dawns on you that he will never make any effort to fight back no matter what you do to him, never lift a hand to stop whatever you desire to do, it becomes impossible for you to derive any satisfaction from revenge under these new conditions, especially when you know that he will never again be permitted, by his realization that he will never be blamed, to do to another what was originally done to yourself. This allows the Great Transition to get underway, as you will see in greater detail very shortly, without any fear of harm.

The potential kidnapper or criminal, who is standing on this moment of time called here when this knowledge is released and before the act is done, is prevented from further contemplation of his crime by the realization that he will never be blamed, judged, criticized, or punished for this act, and by the removal of all forms of tacit blame which unconsciously gave him the motivation and justification, thereby compelling him to get greater satisfaction in his motion to there, by giving up what he was contemplating.

Up until the present time, there was nothing powerful enough to prevent man from risking his life to satisfy a desire, regardless of who got hurt, because the satisfaction of possible success outweighed the dissatisfaction of possible failure; but when he becomes conscious that a particular reaction of not being blamed by the entire world will be the response to his action regardless of what it is, he will be compelled, completely beyond his control but of his own free will or desire, to refrain from what he now foresees can give him absolutely no satisfaction.

Time and again, a person seeking personal revenge has experienced this control of his desire, but never in the degree to which our slide rule permits this Great Transition to get underway. When it fully dawns on him in an absolutely undeniable manner that the person he wishes to hurt in return will never desire to retaliate with further hurt for what was done to him, he is compelled to lose his desire for revenge because it is impossible to derive any satisfaction from the advance knowledge that he will be excused by everyone for his act of retaliation. The full realization that he can no more justify this act of revenge because no one will consider it wrong, that he can do what he wishes to this person without any form of justification, that everyone is compelled of their own free will (by the release of this knowledge) to completely excuse what is definitely not his responsibility — although he knows it would be — makes him desire to forgo what he knows he does not have to do if he doesn’t want to. He knows he is not under any compulsion to do what has not yet been done, and when he becomes aware that no one henceforth will judge his actions, that he is completely free from the trammels of public opinion to do, without the slightest fear of criticism, whatever he thinks is better for himself, that he will not even be punished by the laws, it becomes mathematically impossible for him to desire hurting this other person under these conditions, regardless of what was done to him. It would be equivalent to deriving satisfaction from continuing to beat up an individual who, though fully able to fight back, refuses to lift a hand in his own defense.

In the world of free will, man blamed man and excused himself. In your new world about to unfold, man will be excused by man for everything he does and will be compelled of his own free will to hold himself responsible without justification. Once man knows that he is truly responsible for what others will be compelled to excuse and he would be unable to justify, he is given no choice but to forgo the contemplation of what he foresees can give him no satisfaction. But remember, it is not the knowledge that man’s will is not free that compels you to give up this judging in advance what is right for others, otherwise your government, your unions, your religions, all your writers who make a living expressing their opinions as to what is right and wrong with the world, with love, marriage, children, business, education, etc., would suddenly give up their manner of earning a living which is a mathematical impossibility. Do you think that the manufacturers of candles and other inferior forms of lighting wanted to give up what gave them a source of income when electricity was discovered? They were compelled to adjust because they couldn’t find a market for their obsolete products except on a smaller scale. Do you think the adulterers want to give up their fun, the single males the pleasure of sexual intercourse before marriage? Do you think the people who are getting wealthy on the sweat, brawn, tears, and insecurity of extremely low wages will give up this just because God thunders down from heaven — Thou Shall Not Blame? Do you think that religion will willingly give up its great power and influence because man’s will is not free, which reveals that God is a mathematical reality? The truth of the matter is that everyone will be compelled of his own free will to give up anything that hurts another in any way simply because this hurt will be considered worse under the new conditions. This, my friends, is the great secret of God’s infinite wisdom, which gives man no choice and allows the inception of the Golden Age to get underway very smoothly. But the problem is very deep-rooted and involved, which makes it necessary to treat every aspect of your lives in a separate manner. This and the first chapter only laid the groundwork.

God’s mathematical slide rule and standard, his magic elixir Thou Shall Not Blame (Thou Shall Not Judge what is right for another), when understood to apply only before something is done, will adequately solve the problems that have been plaguing mankind since time immemorial. You can prepare yourselves to say goodbye to all the hurt and evil that came into existence out of necessity. I shall begin with the world of love and marriage, then go on to children and parents. Thence we shall attack (my slide rule and I) the almost insurmountable problems of government, business, education, and last but not least, though our magic elixir will not apply here, I shall reveal something about death in a mathematical, undeniable manner which will make every reader very happy. Don’t you think it strange that of all the millions of years Earth has been in existence (and what is a million years when the words through which you see this relation are clarified) you, of all people, should have been born to see the universe now; why weren’t you born 5000 years ago, or why shouldn’t you be born in the future? My friends, you are in for quite a pleasant surprise, but your mind is so filled with words like spirit, soul, reincarnation, heaven, etc., which have absolutely no meaning whatever, that you are terribly confused, especially those who think they know. You will soon learn that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death, which in itself will revolutionize your lives, but everything is related, so please bear with me since I cannot put everything down at one time. As I said, you will catch your breath in utter amazement at the infinite wisdom that governs this universe, and you will be given no choice but to change your ways.
 

[Age]

I know that the elections are center stage, but that should not disregard a discovery that will have long-lasting positive effects on our world. I cannot help but be sad that the few who have looked at this work have thrown it out without one relevant question to show me that they actually understood what they read. I hope people searching for truth will find this page. Below are the first three chapters for ANYONE who is just coming to this thread.

I will say for the hundredth time I am not here for money, as Age keeps suggesting.

So why provide three chapters only?

Why not provide all of the chapters, here?

Why does anyone have to provide you with money before you will provide them with all of the chapters?

If what you are doing, here, is not 'for money', then what do you call 'it' when some one will not provide some thing until another provides them 'with money' first?

It is disturbing to me because it is preventing the understanding that the solution to war, crime, and hatred, and poverty lies behind the door of determinism.

This may well be True, and Right, and Accurate, and Correct. But, in 'the way' you are talking about and presenting, here, that will never be 'the solution' to war, crime, hatred, nor poverty.

And, this is just because what 'the actual solution' is, is different.

But it is not what people think. Determinism does not mean we have no choice and we are not agents of our destiny.

Therefore, 'free will' does actually exist.

I am not sure how many times I have have to inform these human beings that 'the definition' that one or some use in regards to 'a word' is not the 'only definition'.

This is a problem with the present definition, which is the belief that if determinism is true, we are nothing more than robots, having been stripped of our autonomy. The only thing determinism removes is our pride that we accomplished our goals of our own free will.

Which means that any and every goal that comes about because of 'determinism', and, because of 'having choices' and of 'being agents'. But, what 'agents choose' is determined by 'determinism', itself, right?

If yes, then no matter what knowledge you have and share you will just 'have to wait' until 'determinism' decides when, and what, goals will happen, and occur.

People seem to have a fear of determinism.

LOL Which people seem to have 'this fear', to you, exactly?

I do not know of absolutely any one of you human beings who even appears to, let alone does actually, fear determinism, itself.

There is nothing to be afraid of when the definition is defined accurately to reflect what is actually happening in reality.

LOL 'accurately', 'actually happening', and 'in reality'.

Why do you know, without any doubt at all, 'these things' when others do not.

What in 'determinism' has led you to 'believe' that you know 'these things' absolutely, and absolutely correctly', when determinism', itself, has not allowed others to?

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... b35b0724b3

Why only provide three chapters, only?

It is 'your choice', or is it what 'determinism' planned all along for you to only do?

[Age]

.

..or is it because you have been talking about the same scenarios -for years- that the West are currently attempting to implement, in the West?

Coincidence..?

Hi Mags, I remember you from another forum. What do you mean "talking about the same scenarios for years and that the West is attempting to implement?" Compassion, rehabilitation, and second chances have worked. I don't think it's a coincidence at all because our world is moving toward the understanding that changing the environment to be more equitable will change human conduct in general. This discovery supports the efforts that the West is trying to implement, but in ways that will only add to achieving the end goal of peace and prosperity for all.

UK crime (killings, stabbings, r*pes, thefts) have risen in recent weeks.. just in time for the festive season.

Big-up the home-grown radicalised Muslim youth?

_
I do think that institutionalised racism needs to become a thing of the past, but so does DEI.. as it has allowed radicals to take over Governments’ systems from the inside and destroy those countries.

Did the "british" people ever think about how they allowed "themselves", that is, 'radicals', to infiltrate other countries/systems from the inside and destroy those countries and cultures?

Is it only 'now' "british" people can see, and recognize, the harm that can be done, when others do the exact same thing, to them?

Is it only when their own country, and cult/u're, is being changed, then the "british" people speak up, whinge, and/or complain?

[peacegirl]

I know that the elections are center stage, but that should not disregard a discovery that will have long-lasting positive effects on our world. I cannot help but be sad that the few who have looked at this work have thrown it out without one relevant question to show me that they actually understood what they read. I hope people searching for truth will find this page. Below are the first three chapters for ANYONE who is just coming to this thread.

I will say for the hundredth time I am not here for money, as Age keeps suggesting.

So why provide three chapters only?

Why not provide all of the chapters, here?

Why does anyone have to provide you with money before you will provide them with all of the chapters?

If what you are doing, here, is not 'for money', then what do you call 'it' when some one will not provide some thing until another provides them 'with money' first?

Why is this all you care about?

It is disturbing to me because it is preventing the understanding that the solution to war, crime, and hatred, and poverty lies behind the door of determinism.

AGE: This may well be True, and Right, and Accurate, and Correct. But, in 'the way' you are talking about and presenting, here, that will never be 'the solution' to war, crime, hatred, nor poverty.

PEACEGIRL; How do you know? Not one person asked a question that was related to what I posted, so I assumed they understood.

AGE: And, this is just because what 'the actual solution' is, is different.

PEACEGIRL: There are many solutions to ease conflict, but this one is a true paradigm shift that would lead our world to peace.

AGE: But it is not what people think. Determinism does not mean we have no choice and we are not agents of our destiny.

Therefore, 'free will' does actually exist.

PEACEGIRL: I can tell you didn't read what I posted. We do have the ability to choose freely (i.e., we can contemplate and make our own choices), but this does not mean we have freedom of the will. He was very clear in his definition of determinism that it does not remove this ability, but that alone does not grant us the ability to choose otherwise.

AGE: I am not sure how many times I have to inform these human beings that 'the definition' that one or some use in regards to 'a word' is not the 'only definition'.

PEACEGIRL: Definitions are created to reflect the real world. If the definition is lacking in its ability to reflect the real world, it isn't helpful in our ability to see the real world for what it is.

This is a problem with the present definition, which is the belief that if determinism is true, we are nothing more than robots, having been stripped of our autonomy. The only thing determinism removes is our pride that we accomplished our goals of our own free will.

AGE: Which means that any and every goal that comes about because of 'determinism', and, because of 'having choices' and of 'being agents'. But, what 'agents choose' is determined by 'determinism', itself, right?

PEACEGIRL: Not in the way you think. Determinism is not prescriptive. It does not force a choice on us, against our will. Determinism only means that whatever choice we make, we made it because any other choice at that moment was the least satisfying, thus a choice that could not be made. If you were given a choice between A, shooting someone randomly without a justification, or B, not shooting that person because you had no justification, could you choose B?

AGE: If yes, then no matter what knowledge you have and share you will just 'have to wait' until 'determinism' decides when, and what, goals will happen, and occur.

PEACEGIRL: You are right. That is why the author said this knowledge can't be brought to light any faster than it is. I can't force the world to listen if they're not ready or they have closed their minds.

People seem to have a fear of determinism.

AGE: LOL Which people seem to have 'this fear', to you, exactly?

I do not know of absolutely any one of you human beings who even appears to, let alone does actually, fear determinism, itself.

PEACEGIRL: I think their is an aversion for determinism in the way it's defined today. I can understand why, but with the change in definition, it is clear that determinism doesn't cause or force an action, without our permission. There is nothing to fear at all.

There is nothing to be afraid of when the definition is defined accurately to reflect what is actually happening in reality.

AGE: LOL 'accurately', 'actually happening', and 'in reality'.

Why do you know, without any doubt at all, 'these things' when others do not.

PEACEGIRL: Because of the problem with definition. Even though this discovery was made many years ago, it was never promoted or distributed. The times were different. He didn't have the internet. He didn't have an ability to get this knowledge into the hands of those who could do something with it.

AGE: What in 'determinism' has led you to 'believe' that you know 'these things' absolutely, and absolutely correctly', when determinism', itself, has not allowed others to?

PEACEGIRL: We all have different genetics and have different environments. All determinism means is that we all move in accordance with what we believe will offer us greater satisfaction from moment to moment given the available choices at our disposal.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... b35b0724b3

AGE: Why only provide three chapters, only?

It is 'your choice', or is it what 'determinism' planned all along for you to only do?

PEACEGIRL: We discussed this already. Again, determinism doesn't prescribe what a person must do before he himself decides what he wants to do. I don't believe giving more of the book away will help this cause. In addition, it will go against Amazon's policy, and I'm not jeopardizing my chances for people to find this work on Amazon's worldwide platform. That said, there is a problem accessing the book on Amazon when you type in the title. You have to type in the author, Seymoure Lessans, which will take you to his books.

[peacegirl]

Hi Mags, I remember you from another forum. What do you mean "talking about the same scenarios for years and that the West is attempting to implement?" Compassion, rehabilitation, and second chances have worked. I don't think it's a coincidence at all because our world is moving toward the understanding that changing the environment to be more equitable will change human conduct in general. This discovery supports the efforts that the West is trying to implement, but in ways that will only add to achieving the end goal of peace and prosperity for all.

UK crime (killings, stabbings, r*pes, thefts) have risen in recent weeks.. just in time for the festive season.

Big-up the home-grown radicalised Muslim youth?

_
I do think that institutionalised racism needs to become a thing of the past, but so does DEI.. as it has allowed radicals to take over Governments’ systems from the inside and destroy those countries.

Did the "british" people ever think about how they allowed "themselves", that is, 'radicals', to infiltrate other countries/systems from the inside and destroy those countries and cultures?

Is it only 'now' "british" people can see, and recognize, the harm that can be done, when others do the exact same thing, to them?

Is it only when their own country, and cult/u're, is being changed, then the "british" people speak up, whinge, and/or complain?

It's true that when something is done that hurts another (whether it's a country or an individual), it is not recognized (purposely or not) until that same harm is done to them, which is the attack and counterattack that destroys the fabric of civilization. But in the new world, a country will be unable to infiltrate other countries and destroy them and their cultures. If it's a retaliatory blow, then they would be justified to infiltrate, which is the very thing that is prevented by this knowledge.

[Age]

I know that the elections are center stage, but that should not disregard a discovery that will have long-lasting positive effects on our world. I cannot help but be sad that the few who have looked at this work have thrown it out without one relevant question to show me that they actually understood what they read. I hope people searching for truth will find this page. Below are the first three chapters for ANYONE who is just coming to this thread.

I will say for the hundredth time I am not here for money, as Age keeps suggesting.

So why provide three chapters only?

Why not provide all of the chapters, here?

Why does anyone have to provide you with money before you will provide them with all of the chapters?

If what you are doing, here, is not 'for money', then what do you call 'it' when some one will not provide some thing until another provides them 'with money' first?

Why is this all you care about?

1. But it is not all that I care about.

2. Why did you assume some thing that was completely False and Wrong?

3. Also, why did you not answer and clarify any of the four questions that I posed, and asked you?

It is disturbing to me because it is preventing the understanding that the solution to war, crime, and hatred, and poverty lies behind the door of determinism.

AGE: This may well be True, and Right, and Accurate, and Correct. But, in 'the way' you are talking about and presenting, here, that will never be 'the solution' to war, crime, hatred, nor poverty.

PEACEGIRL; How do you know?

Because I have tried and tested it.

I also already know what the actual solution is, exactly, which has been tried and tested and which does actually work.

By the way, why have you, still, after all of this time not yet been able to work out how to quote, here, in a way that it makes it easier and simpler for the readers, here?

Not one person asked a question that was related to what I posted, so I assumed they understood.

If this is what you say, believe and assume, then okay.

AGE: And, this is just because what 'the actual solution' is, is different.

PEACEGIRL: There are many solutions to ease conflict, but this one is a true paradigm shift that would lead our world to peace.

Obviously if it was, then it would have already worked. The writings you refer to were written some time ago, the world is certainly very far from peace, therefore what you claim is a 'true paradigm shift that would lead to world peace', has not worked. And, in fact does not work as the tests have shown.

AGE: But it is not what people think. Determinism does not mean we have no choice and we are not agents of our destiny.

Therefore, 'free will' does actually exist.

PEACEGIRL: I can tell you didn't read what I posted. We do have the ability to choose freely (i.e., we can contemplate and make our own choices), but this does not mean we have freedom of the will.

Obviously you did not read what I have posted and asked you. Or, if you have, then you, obviously, are 'determined' to not answer clarifying questions posed, and asked, to you

He was very clear in his definition of determinism that it does not remove this ability, but that alone does not grant us the ability to choose otherwise.

it then did not yet understand. Maybe if it lived a bit longer, then it would have come to understand what 'we' now 'currently' understand and know.

AGE: I am not sure how many times I have to inform these human beings that 'the definition' that one or some use in regards to 'a word' is not the 'only definition'.

PEACEGIRL: Definitions are created to reflect the real world. If the definition is lacking in its ability to reflect the real world, it isn't helpful in our ability to see the real world for what it is

Thus why you have not yet, and and "your" daddy did not, see the 'Real world'.

This is a problem with the present definition, which is the belief that if determinism is true, we are nothing more than robots, having been stripped of our autonomy. The only thing determinism removes is our pride that we accomplished our goals of our own free will.

AGE: Which means that any and every goal that comes about because of 'determinism', and, because of 'having choices' and of 'being agents'. But, what 'agents choose' is determined by 'determinism', itself, right?

PEACEGIRL: Not in the way you think.

What is 'the way' I think?

And, are you assuming what I think, or, do you know how I think, absolutely and without any doubt?

Determinism is not prescriptive. It does not force a choice on us, against our will.

But, you do not have freedom of the will anyway, right?

Also, where do 'choices', themselves, even come from, exactly?

Determinism only means that whatever choice we make, we made it because any other choice at that moment was the least satisfying, thus a choice that could not be made.

But, obviously, the least satisfying choice 'could' have been made.

For example choosing to do what is 'morally Right' might be least satisfying. But, of course, this would depend upon the variables at the time, which, obviously, need to be discussed, to be known.

Are you open and honest enough to have a discussion about all of the variables? Or, do you much prefer to just sit in, and remain with, your own personal 'current' belief, here, only?

If you were given a choice between A, shooting someone randomly without a justification, or B, not shooting that person because you had no justification, could you choose B?

Just because I might choose one thing in that one and only very specific example does not mean that I could not choose the 'least satisfying' choice in another example, nor even in that example of yours, here.

AGE: If yes, then no matter what knowledge you have and share you will just 'have to wait' until 'determinism' decides when, and what, goals will happen, and occur.

PEACEGIRL: You are right.

Great.

And, what 'determinism', itself, might have planned and has set out to happen and occur is present and show your Truly greedy and selfish choices and ways, here. 'This' might have been 'pre-determined' to be put 'on show', here, so that others can learn what not to do, in Life, and to make the actual Right choices, in Life, which in turn will make and create a Truly peaceful and harmonious world for absolutely every one, as One.

Again, 'we' just have to wait, to see.

Or, do you believe that 'this' could not have been a 'pre-determined', by 'determinism', possibility?

Could you be choosing the most satisfying, to you, choice, here, that is, to obtain as much money as you can from your daddy's writings because you believe being monetary rich is the most satisfying thing, for you?

That is why the author said this knowledge can't be brought to light any faster than it is. I can't force the world to listen if they're not ready or they have closed their minds.

Great.

And, only releasing 'this knowledge' when "its" daughter obtains as much money as it can is only delaying 'this knowledge' from being brought to light even further.

People seem to have a fear of determinism.

AGE: LOL Which people seem to have 'this fear', to you, exactly?

I do not know of absolutely any one of you human beings who even appears to, let alone does actually, fear determinism, itself.

PEACEGIRL: I think their is an aversion for determinism in the way it's defined today.

Are you not yet aware that what 'you' think is not necessarily what is actually True, nor Right, in Life?

I can understand why, but with the change in definition, it is clear that determinism doesn't cause or force an action, without our permission. There is nothing to fear at all.

And, as I just, very clearly, pointed out, I do not know of any human being who has 'that fear' anyway.

So, you do not need to fear that anyone is even fearing what you say and claim there is nothing to fear about at all, here, anyway.

Therefore, there is absolutely nothing for you to fear about, here, "peacegirl".

There is nothing to be afraid of when the definition is defined accurately to reflect what is actually happening in reality.

AGE: LOL 'accurately', 'actually happening', and 'in reality'.

Why do you know, without any doubt at all, 'these things' when others do not.

PEACEGIRL: Because of the problem with definition.

By the way you just spoke and wrote, here, you do not yet know what the definition of 'problem' is, exactly.

Even though this discovery was made many years ago, it was never promoted or distributed. The times were different. He didn't have the internet. He didn't have an ability to get this knowledge into the hands of those who could do something with it.

you are absolutely free to believe whatever you like, right?

AGE: What in 'determinism' has led you to 'believe' that you know 'these things' absolutely, and absolutely correctly', when determinism', itself, has not allowed others to?

PEACEGIRL: We all have different genetics and have different environments.

So, what if you human beings have different genetics?

All determinism means is that we all move in accordance with what we believe will offer us greater satisfaction from moment to moment given the available choices at our disposal.

But, to others 'determinism' means something else entirely. So, which one of you human beings has and holds the actual Truth, here, exactly?

you seeking money, first, before you will hand of 'this knowledge', which is not even yours, is because doing this will bring you 'greater satisfaction', right?

If no, then why not?

And, what would give you 'greater satisfaction', here, exactly?

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... b35b0724b3

AGE: Why only provide three chapters, only?

It is 'your choice', or is it what 'determinism' planned all along for you to only do?

PEACEGIRL: We discussed this already. Again, determinism doesn't prescribe what a person must do before he himself decides what he wants to do.

I never even thought this, let alone said nor wrote it anywhere. So, why are you saying that we discussed 'this' already?

What you discuss, from what you presume, is never necessarily what I have ever thought, said, nor meant.

Why do you keep assuming I am thinking or meaning things that I do not?

Now, obviously, you are claiming that you choose to not provide 'the writings' to any one unless they give you money, first, and you make this choice because you believe I raining money, for the "author's" writings will give you 'greater satisfaction', in Life.

Which ultimately means that you will put "yourself" and your love-of-money', and love of material things, over a peaceful world, for every one.

But, you, still, believe that 'you' are not greedy nor selfish, right?

I don't believe giving more of the book away will help this cause.

So, do you believe that withholding some of the book and/or withholding some of 'this knowledge', until you are given money, is going to help 'the cause'?

If yes, then how, exactly?

In addition, it will go against Amazon's policy, and I'm not jeopardizing my chances for people to find this work on Amazon's worldwide platform.

So, to you, the interests of one, somewhat 'monetary rich', company is more important than a Truly better world, for every one.

That said, there is a problem accessing the book on Amazon when you type in the title. You have to type in the author, Seymoure Lessans, which will take you to his books.

But, why not just share the book, here, for free in this forum?

What are you afraid of, exactly?

[Age]

UK crime (killings, stabbings, r*pes, thefts) have risen in recent weeks.. just in time for the festive season.

Big-up the home-grown radicalised Muslim youth?

_
I do think that institutionalised racism needs to become a thing of the past, but so does DEI.. as it has allowed radicals to take over Governments’ systems from the inside and destroy those countries.

Did the "british" people ever think about how they allowed "themselves", that is, 'radicals', to infiltrate other countries/systems from the inside and destroy those countries and cultures?

Is it only 'now' "british" people can see, and recognize, the harm that can be done, when others do the exact same thing, to them?

Is it only when their own country, and cult/u're, is being changed, then the "british" people speak up, whinge, and/or complain?

It's true that when something is done that hurts another (whether it's a country or an individual), it is not recognized (purposely or not) until that same harm is done to them, which is the attack and counterattack that destroys the fabric of civilization. But in the new world, a country will be unable to infiltrate other countries and destroy them and their cultures. If it's a retaliatory blow, then they would be justified to infiltrate, which is the very thing that is prevented by this knowledge.

But, that is not prevented by this knowledge, as I have said it has already been tried, and tested, and it does not work.

When will you start listening, and comprehending?